IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i21p9211-d1505279.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Developing a Community-Based Carbon Footprint Questionnaire: Towards a Dynamic Understanding of How Personal Behaviour Interacts with Policy and Economic Change

Author

Listed:
  • Philip Haynes

    (White Horse Research Services, Chichester PO19 6BQ, UK
    Mithras House, School of Humanities and Social Science, University of Brighton, Lewes Road, Brighton BN2 4AT, UK)

Abstract

Carbon footprint measures evidence the impact of organizations and individuals’ contribution to climate change. They can facilitate critical reflection. A community carbon footprint questionnaire is developed in cooperation with local people to enable them to reflect on how to reduce their personal carbon footprint in relation to their social and economic context. The instrument is operationalised in an Anglican church community who have stated an aim to reduce their footprint. It is designed to help participants make a self-assessment of where their behaviour change will make the most social impact. There are three components to the total score: (A) transportation, (B) accommodation energy use, and (C) consumer behaviour. Forty two participants respond. The average carbon footprint score is 5.8 tonnes per annum. Older and middle-aged people are more likely to have a higher footprint than younger adults. This is associated with them having a larger accommodation and being more dependent on private cars. Accommodation energy use contributes the most to the participants’ total scores. Living in smaller accommodation and sharing an accommodation reduces an individual’s carbon footprint. The second largest component is transportation, with the use of diesel- and petrol-fuelled cars contributing the biggest impact, especially where mileage is high. A minority are moving towards electric and hybrid cars. Finally, the smallest contributing component is consumer behaviour, where participants’ scores are the least dispersed in the sample compared to the other components and closer to the mean average. Participants are more likely to make commitments to changing consumer behaviour than changing transportation and domestic energy use and often focus on recycling, reducing the consumption of meat and new goods, and repairing older items. In contrast, when the results are located in the context of changes in policy, the simplest gains to reducing carbon footprints are related to changing behaviour in the purchase of household electricity to ensure the purchase of renewable power. Other important considerations are reducing the size and heated area of an individual’s accommodation space, or sharing an accommodation with more people, and moving away from the use of diesel- and petrol-fuelled private transportation, instead using public transport, cycling, and walking. More complex and expensive strategies for individuals are installing solar panels and heat pumps for accommodation energy generation, and switching personal transportation to electric cars. Policy analysis suggests that participants were largely unaware of new opportunities to change their consumption of electricity towards renewable generation by purchasing greener electricity options.

Suggested Citation

  • Philip Haynes, 2024. "Developing a Community-Based Carbon Footprint Questionnaire: Towards a Dynamic Understanding of How Personal Behaviour Interacts with Policy and Economic Change," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(21), pages 1-13, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:21:p:9211-:d:1505279
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/21/9211/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/21/9211/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tao Gao & Qing Liu & Jianping Wang, 2014. "A comparative study of carbon footprint and assessment standards," International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(3), pages 237-243.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tsai, Yu-Chun & Feng, Yong-Qiang & Shuai, Yong & Lai, Jhao-Hong & Leung, Michael K.H. & Wei, Yen & Hsu, Hua-Yi & Hung, Tzu-Chen, 2023. "Experimental validation of a 0.3 kW ORC for the future purposes in the study of low-grade thermal to power conversion," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 285(C).
    2. Malcher, Xenia & Tenorio-Rodriguez, Francis Catherine & Finkbeiner, Matthias & Gonzalez-Salazar, Miguel, 2025. "Decarbonization of district heating: A systematic review of carbon footprint and key mitigation strategies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 215(C).
    3. Aditya Prana Iswara & Aulia Ulfah Farahdiba & Rachmat Boedisantoso & Anwar Rosyid & Sunu Priambodo & Lin-Han Chiang Hsieh, 2023. "Carbon footprint of offshore platform in Indonesia using life cycle approach," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(10), pages 11263-11284, October.
    4. Rainer Kasperzak & Marko Kureljusic & Lucas Reisch & Simon Thies, 2023. "Accounting for Carbon Emissions—Current State of Sustainability Reporting Practice under the GHG Protocol," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-17, January.
    5. Oliver Lange & Julian Plath & Timo F. Dziggel & David F. Karpa & Mattis Keil & Tom Becker & Wolf H. Rogowski, 2022. "A Transparency Checklist for Carbon Footprint Calculations Applied within a Systematic Review of Virtual Care Interventions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(12), pages 1-14, June.
    6. Natalia V. Starodubets & Irina S. Belik & Natalia L. Nikulina & Tamila T. Alikberova, 2023. "Assessment and Forecasting of Metallurgical Enterprises Carbon Footprint in the Sverdlovsk Region," Journal of Applied Economic Research, Graduate School of Economics and Management, Ural Federal University, vol. 22(3), pages 572-599.
    7. Xiaorong Sun & Xueping Pan & Chenhao Jin & Yihan Li & Qijie Xu & Danxu Zhang & Hongyang Li, 2022. "Life Cycle Assessment-Based Carbon Footprint Accounting Model and Analysis for Integrated Energy Stations in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(24), pages 1-20, December.
    8. Fang, Zigeng & Yan, Jiayi & Lu, Qiuchen & Chen, Long & Yang, Pu & Tang, Junqing & Jiang, Feng & Broyd, Tim & Hong, Jingke, 2023. "A systematic literature review of carbon footprint decision-making approaches for infrastructure and building projects," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 335(C).
    9. Agnieszka Sompolska-Rzechuła & Iwona Bąk & Aneta Becker & Henryk Marjak & Joanna Perzyńska, 2024. "The Use of Renewable Energy Sources and Environmental Degradation in EU Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-32, November.
    10. Tanya Arora & Sarvani Reddy Chirla & Nimisha Singla & Lovleen Gupta, 2023. "Product Packaging by E-commerce Platforms: Impact of COVID-19 and Proposal for Circular Model to Reduce the Demand of Virgin Packaging," Circular Economy and Sustainability, Springer, vol. 3(3), pages 1255-1273, September.
    11. Fengsong Pei & Rui Zhong & Li-An Liu & Yingjuan Qiao, 2021. "Decoupling the Relationships between Carbon Footprint and Economic Growth within an Urban Agglomeration—A Case Study of the Yangtze River Delta in China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-15, September.
    12. Shanshan Wang & Weifeng Wang & Hongqiang Yang, 2018. "Comparison of Product Carbon Footprint Protocols: Case Study on Medium-Density Fiberboard in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-14, September.
    13. Lukasz Skowron & Monika Sak-Skowron, 2021. "Environmental Sensitivity and Awareness as Differentiating Factors in the Purchase Decision-Making Process in the Smartphone Industry—Case of Polish Consumers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-19, January.
    14. Allen H. Hu & Chia-Hsiang Chen & Lance Hongwei Huang & Ming-Hsiu Chung & Yi-Chen Lan & Zhonghua Chen, 2019. "Environmental Impact and Carbon Footprint Assessment of Taiwanese Agricultural Products: A Case Study on Taiwanese Dongshan Tea," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-13, January.
    15. Thomas Wiedmann, 2017. "On the decomposition of total impact multipliers in a supply and use framework," Journal of Economic Structures, Springer;Pan-Pacific Association of Input-Output Studies (PAPAIOS), vol. 6(1), pages 1-11, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:21:p:9211-:d:1505279. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.